planetf1.com

Fiki wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:42 am

Asphalt_World wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 5:10 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:41 pm

Asphalt_World wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:33 pm

Fiki wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:13 pm

Any idea whether my DRS-allergy is going to knock me out or not? (I don't mean the F2 race was one, you clearly enjoyed it.)

DRS could make today's race into one of those they had in Monza during the 60's. However, at least there was plenty of passing and near passes without the use of DRS.

Did downforce and aero wake even exist back then?

Very little, but my point was that in the two F2 races, there were passes without the need for DRS, despite all the DRS enabled passing.

Of course aero wake existed before the introduction of the wings! That's precisely what the drivers exploited in the 1960s (and earlier) on long straights. What did you think the Mistral straight at Paul Ricard was for? I hoped F1 would be open-minded enough to disable DRS for that track when it returned. But no, they decided to cut it in half, using a stupid chicane! That was the stupidest idea of the last decade or so, following hot on the heels of increasing downforce in search of lap records instead of racing. [/rant]

I didn't really enjoy the race. Another one decided on the first corner, and altered through the use of an unnecessary Spectacle Car intervention. Poor George... (And poor Stoffel, for that matter.)

Surely what you are describing is drivers taking advantage of the slipstream affect, aero wake is what stops drivers taking full advantage of the slipstream affect.

Rockie wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 3:05 pm

Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 07, 2020 8:27 pm

Rockie wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 07, 2020 5:38 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 07, 2020 5:30 pm

Rockie wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:26 pm

Yes you can, what do you mean you cant have it both ways?

I'm sorry but Bottas is not a top driver, Russell has shown the advantage the Mercedes gives yet Bottas cant extract the same performance out of it.

The mistake folks are making in this Bottas and Russell debate is if Russell started the season in Mercedes it wont even be a debate he would have annihilated him.

Mercedes should have used Stoffel its actually bad for them going forward now like Verstappen said 90% of the grid can win in the Mercedes.

Russell is a top 10 driver so no that doesn't really fit the 90% analogy.

The problem here is Russell beat Bottas the same way Hamilton beats him after just 4 hours in the car, qualify just behind if he doesn't outqualify him and pull away from him in the race.

Well, as facts this is simply not true. Bottas was ahead in qualifying and in the race results, so much is true.

Did Russell have better race pace?
- stint 1: both were equally fast - and both were probably not pushing
- stint 2: Bottas was quicker, closing in on Russell
- post Aitken-SC: Russell was on fresh medium tyres significantly quicker than Bottas on ruined hard tyres

Drawing bold conclusions about who is faster from that evidence is not very convincing.

Russell was better at the start and showed an overall impressive performance, irrespective of whether he was ultimately faster or not.

You realise you have arrived at the same conclusion as the post you are replying to.

No he didn't unless you think that Bottas is the equal of Hamilton come race day.

Rockie wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 3:28 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 3:18 pm

Rockie wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:36 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:39 pm

Rockie wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 07, 2020 6:52 pm

Bottas was disastrously poor this weekend that Russell looked like the veteran in the team and Bottas was the replacement driver.

I agree Bottas was scrappy, damaged his floor in FP1, couldn't set a fast legal time on softs in FP2 although his best illegal time was 2 tenths quicker than what Russell managed. However it was Russell that struggled in FP3 being 4 tenths slower than Bottas and in qualifying that was very close with Bottas just nipping it.

In the race Bottas made a bad start and was again very scrappy through the first few laps which we can say in part triggered the mayhem behind him and then we had the part of the race were the rhetoric is that Russell drove away comfortably from Bottas, from lap 7, when the race get underway again after the SC, to lap 44 when Russell pitted, he was a whopping 0.07s quicker than Bottas, if the roles were reversed would we be saying that Russell looked like the replacement driver or would we still be impressed by Russell, I suggest the latter.

To say that Bottas was disastrously poor would suggest that Russell really wasn't that impressive because Bottas could have done better.

What sort of mental gymnastics is this?

So let me ask you a question, if you are starting a team in F1 as a team principal and you have the option of signing one out of Bottas or Russell who would you sign?

I would sign Russell the driver that Mercedes tried to sign for next year.

The mental gymnastics is to show how wrong you were at suggesting that Russell performed at the same level as Hamilton would have done, when in fact he was no quicker than Bottas a driver that Hamilton easily beats come race day.

I suspected this was the reason for your mental gymnastics.

But are you suggesting that Bottas does not beat Hamilton in practice, and does not outqualify Hamilton and then Hamilton has a better start and pulls away from him?

If Russell is given 3 races in the car Bottas wont even be in the conversation anymore.

What does practice have to do with anything, there's a reason why Bottas is called the FP1 world champion.

Hamilton out qualifies Bottas by a ratio of about 2:1, Russell did not out qualify Bottas,

Having a gap of 2/3 seconds going into the first pitstop is not a driver pulling away from another driver, nominally it's a gap the driver behind would want to keep in order to look after his tyres.

For Hamilton we often get the hammertime were he extends the gap going into the first stops, often we even see Bottas pitting first because he's run out of tyres, not extend the stint by 4 laps like he did against Russell looking to get a tyre offset which he started to use against Russell before the race got ruined by SC's.

I wouldn't be looking to disagree with your last statement just the apparent reasoning that's what Russell actually did in Sakhir.

All the sites have articles on whether Mercedes should pay Hamilton his wages when it's clear the car is the mega star here.. I don't ever ever remember this happening to Schumacher even in his most dominant time.. Ferrari was always ready to pay him unheard of wages making him the most highly paid sportsman for years with Tiger Woods...It's clear Hamilton is a fake 7 time champion

schumilegend wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:09 pm

All the sites have articles on whether Mercedes should pay Hamilton his wages when it's clear the car is the mega star here.. I don't ever ever remember this happening to Schumacher even in his most dominant time.. Ferrari was always ready to pay him unheard of wages making him the most highly paid sportsman for years with Tiger Woods...It's clear Hamilton is a fake 7 time champion

Mate, I urge you to please stop this. It really does your credibility no good.

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:28 pm

schumilegend wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:09 pm

All the sites have articles on whether Mercedes should pay Hamilton his wages when it's clear the car is the mega star here.. I don't ever ever remember this happening to Schumacher even in his most dominant time.. Ferrari was always ready to pay him unheard of wages making him the most highly paid sportsman for years with Tiger Woods...It's clear Hamilton is a fake 7 time champion

Mate, I urge you to please stop this. It really does your credibility no good.

Lol..Ya ok, like i i give 2 cents about my "credibility" in a motorsport forum...What i said is true...may not sound good to a Hamilton fan

I would look at how much Vettel earns and his performances the last 4 years than worry about Hamilton.

pokerman wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:01 pm

Rockie wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 3:28 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 3:18 pm

Rockie wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:36 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:39 pm

I agree Bottas was scrappy, damaged his floor in FP1, couldn't set a fast legal time on softs in FP2 although his best illegal time was 2 tenths quicker than what Russell managed. However it was Russell that struggled in FP3 being 4 tenths slower than Bottas and in qualifying that was very close with Bottas just nipping it.

In the race Bottas made a bad start and was again very scrappy through the first few laps which we can say in part triggered the mayhem behind him and then we had the part of the race were the rhetoric is that Russell drove away comfortably from Bottas, from lap 7, when the race get underway again after the SC, to lap 44 when Russell pitted, he was a whopping 0.07s quicker than Bottas, if the roles were reversed would we be saying that Russell looked like the replacement driver or would we still be impressed by Russell, I suggest the latter.

To say that Bottas was disastrously poor would suggest that Russell really wasn't that impressive because Bottas could have done better.

What sort of mental gymnastics is this?

So let me ask you a question, if you are starting a team in F1 as a team principal and you have the option of signing one out of Bottas or Russell who would you sign?

I would sign Russell the driver that Mercedes tried to sign for next year.

The mental gymnastics is to show how wrong you were at suggesting that Russell performed at the same level as Hamilton would have done, when in fact he was no quicker than Bottas a driver that Hamilton easily beats come race day.

I suspected this was the reason for your mental gymnastics.

But are you suggesting that Bottas does not beat Hamilton in practice, and does not outqualify Hamilton and then Hamilton has a better start and pulls away from him?

If Russell is given 3 races in the car Bottas wont even be in the conversation anymore.

What does practice have to do with anything, there's a reason why Bottas is called the FP1 world champion.

Hamilton out qualifies Bottas by a ratio of about 2:1, Russell did not out qualify Bottas,

Having a gap of 2/3 seconds going into the first pitstop is not a driver pulling away from another driver, nominally it's a gap the driver behind would want to keep in order to look after his tyres.

For Hamilton we often get the hammertime were he extends the gap going into the first stops, often we even see Bottas pitting first because he's run out of tyres, not extend the stint by 4 laps like he did against Russell looking to get a tyre offset which he started to use against Russell before the race got ruined by SC's.

I wouldn't be looking to disagree with your last statement just the apparent reasoning that's what Russell actually did in Sakhir.

Just throwing in an alternative point of view here. I don't think that many would expect Russell to outqualify Bottas over a single lap in hist first outing in a new car.
During the first stint, I think it's equally fair to say that both drivers were managing the gap. Russell implied over the radio that he could step up the pace if need be.
Whilst Bottas did close was was initially a larger gap in the second stint (and before the SC and subsequent pit farce) I still feel that Russell had the race under control. Some of that time came about through the VSC and some, I'm inclined to think, through (lapping) traffic.
I'm not saying that this is the case -just an alternate view.

schumilegend wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:39 pm

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:28 pm

schumilegend wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:09 pm

All the sites have articles on whether Mercedes should pay Hamilton his wages when it's clear the car is the mega star here.. I don't ever ever remember this happening to Schumacher even in his most dominant time.. Ferrari was always ready to pay him unheard of wages making him the most highly paid sportsman for years with Tiger Woods...It's clear Hamilton is a fake 7 time champion

Mate, I urge you to please stop this. It really does your credibility no good.

Lol..Ya ok, like i i give 2 cents about my "credibility" in a motorsport forum...What i said is true...may not sound good to a Hamilton fan

You are free to voice whatever opinions you want (so long as they abide by the forum rules) but you are not going to win many friends by coming in and being condescending about the establishment or its patrons. If you feel you are too good for the place, why are you here?

Anyway, Hamilton didn't even take part in this race weekend, so his wage negotiations clearly belong in a different thread.

Fiki wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:42 am

Asphalt_World wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 5:10 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:41 pm

Asphalt_World wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:33 pm

Fiki wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:13 pm

Any idea whether my DRS-allergy is going to knock me out or not? (I don't mean the F2 race was one, you clearly enjoyed it.)

DRS could make today's race into one of those they had in Monza during the 60's. However, at least there was plenty of passing and near passes without the use of DRS.

Did downforce and aero wake even exist back then?

Very little, but my point was that in the two F2 races, there were passes without the need for DRS, despite all the DRS enabled passing.

Of course aero wake existed before the introduction of the wings! That's precisely what the drivers exploited in the 1960s (and earlier) on long straights. What did you think the Mistral straight at Paul Ricard was for? I hoped F1 would be open-minded enough to disable DRS for that track when it returned. But no, they decided to cut it in half, using a stupid chicane! That was the stupidest idea of the last decade or so, following hot on the heels of increasing downforce in search of lap records instead of racing. [/rant]

I didn't really enjoy the race. Another one decided on the first corner, and altered through the use of an unnecessary Spectacle Car intervention. Poor George... (And poor Stoffel, for that matter.)

I guess was I was thinking is that the wake didn't cause much of an issue for cars following through corners as aero downforce was minimal at best.

pokerman wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 3:41 pm

Fiki wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:42 am

Asphalt_World wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 5:10 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:41 pm

Asphalt_World wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:33 pm

DRS could make today's race into one of those they had in Monza during the 60's. However, at least there was plenty of passing and near passes without the use of DRS.

Did downforce and aero wake even exist back then?

Very little, but my point was that in the two F2 races, there were passes without the need for DRS, despite all the DRS enabled passing.

Of course aero wake existed before the introduction of the wings! That's precisely what the drivers exploited in the 1960s (and earlier) on long straights. What did you think the Mistral straight at Paul Ricard was for? I hoped F1 would be open-minded enough to disable DRS for that track when it returned. But no, they decided to cut it in half, using a stupid chicane! That was the stupidest idea of the last decade or so, following hot on the heels of increasing downforce in search of lap records instead of racing. [/rant]

I didn't really enjoy the race. Another one decided on the first corner, and altered through the use of an unnecessary Spectacle Car intervention. Poor George... (And poor Stoffel, for that matter.)

Surely what you are describing is drivers taking advantage of the slipstream affect, aero wake is what stops drivers taking full advantage of the slipstream affect.

No, every car produces a slipstream, though the slipstream is much different if that car has lift producing wings (turned upside down in this case). The fact that the slipstream is there, can be seen from cars getting a tow down the straight. The problem with downforce producing wings is that the efficiency of the wings is much reduced if following in the slipstream of a preceding car around corners, which means it is harder to get close enough so that the following car can take advantage of the slipstream down the straight.

Instead of taking measures to reduce the reliance on downforce to produce laptime, F1 has installed a free slipstream advantage for following cars, against which a defending driver is powerless, if the FIA fails to optimize the length of DRS zones. And that is why my interest in modern F1 races has declined over the past 2 decades; and I can only hope the new configuration from 2022 will be more successful than the rule changes for 2009.

Fiki wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:42 am

Asphalt_World wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 5:10 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:41 pm

Asphalt_World wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:33 pm

Fiki wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:13 pm

Any idea whether my DRS-allergy is going to knock me out or not? (I don't mean the F2 race was one, you clearly enjoyed it.)

DRS could make today's race into one of those they had in Monza during the 60's. However, at least there was plenty of passing and near passes without the use of DRS.

Did downforce and aero wake even exist back then?

Very little, but my point was that in the two F2 races, there were passes without the need for DRS, despite all the DRS enabled passing.

Of course aero wake existed before the introduction of the wings! That's precisely what the drivers exploited in the 1960s (and earlier) on long straights. What did you think the Mistral straight at Paul Ricard was for? I hoped F1 would be open-minded enough to disable DRS for that track when it returned. But no, they decided to cut it in half, using a stupid chicane! That was the stupidest idea of the last decade or so, following hot on the heels of increasing downforce in search of lap records instead of racing. [/rant]

I didn't really enjoy the race. Another one decided on the first corner, and altered through the use of an unnecessary Spectacle Car intervention. Poor George... (And poor Stoffel, for that matter.)

Whilst I'm in general agreement about the misuse of the Safety Car in recent years, I actually thought it was used correctly in this instance. Personally I don't like seeing marshals running on the track, particularly onto the racing line as in this instance, without the race being neutralised and a sensible gap in the traffic provided for them to work. To the race director's credit he did initially try to sort it via VSC this time and only deployed the Safety Car later on when it was decided that it couldn't be done without putting a marshal in the firing line.

It is naive to think that the drivers are simply crawling around the track being careful when the VSC is on, they are still trying to negotiate the circuit as quickly as possible within the restrictions while trying to keep tyre and brake temperatures up; it's not good to have marshals running onto the track under those conditions.

So for me, it's VSC if there are marshals working in a run-off zone. Safety Car if they are on the track.

j man wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:06 pm

Fiki wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:42 am

Asphalt_World wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 5:10 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:41 pm

Asphalt_World wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:33 pm

DRS could make today's race into one of those they had in Monza during the 60's. However, at least there was plenty of passing and near passes without the use of DRS.

Did downforce and aero wake even exist back then?

Very little, but my point was that in the two F2 races, there were passes without the need for DRS, despite all the DRS enabled passing.

Of course aero wake existed before the introduction of the wings! That's precisely what the drivers exploited in the 1960s (and earlier) on long straights. What did you think the Mistral straight at Paul Ricard was for? I hoped F1 would be open-minded enough to disable DRS for that track when it returned. But no, they decided to cut it in half, using a stupid chicane! That was the stupidest idea of the last decade or so, following hot on the heels of increasing downforce in search of lap records instead of racing. [/rant]

I didn't really enjoy the race. Another one decided on the first corner, and altered through the use of an unnecessary Spectacle Car intervention. Poor George... (And poor Stoffel, for that matter.)

Whilst I'm in general agreement about the misuse of the Safety Car in recent years, I actually thought it was used correctly in this instance. Personally I don't like seeing marshals running on the track, particularly onto the racing line as in this instance, without the race being neutralised and a sensible gap in the traffic provided for them to work. To the race director's credit he did initially try to sort it via VSC this time and only deployed the Safety Car later on when it was decided that it couldn't be done without putting a marshal in the firing line.

It is naive to think that the drivers are simply crawling around the track being careful when the VSC is on, they are still trying to negotiate the circuit as quickly as possible within the restrictions while trying to keep tyre and brake temperatures up; it's not good to have marshals running onto the track under those conditions.

So for me, it's VSC if there are marshals working in a run-off zone. Safety Car if they are on the track.

Yeah, agreed. Unnecessary safety cars are bad, but let's not get into territory where we start demanding they not put one out when there's a genuine need. The safety of the marshals has to come over an unaltered race result any day of the week.

schumilegend wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:39 pm

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:28 pm

schumilegend wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:09 pm

All the sites have articles on whether Mercedes should pay Hamilton his wages when it's clear the car is the mega star here.. I don't ever ever remember this happening to Schumacher even in his most dominant time.. Ferrari was always ready to pay him unheard of wages making him the most highly paid sportsman for years with Tiger Woods...It's clear Hamilton is a fake 7 time champion

Mate, I urge you to please stop this. It really does your credibility no good.

Lol..Ya ok, like i i give 2 cents about my "credibility" in a motorsport forum...What i said is true...may not sound good to a Hamilton fan

I am definitely not a Hamilton die-hard fan, this spot is taken by another in this forum!

schumilegend wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:09 pm

All the sites have articles on whether Mercedes should pay Hamilton his wages when it's clear the car is the mega star here.. I don't ever ever remember this happening to Schumacher even in his most dominant time.. Ferrari was always ready to pay him unheard of wages making him the most highly paid sportsman for years with Tiger Woods...It's clear Hamilton is a fake 7 time champion

Probably just people like you, Hamilton has always had plenty of knockers, while Mercedes themselves don't seem to have much of a problem with Hamilton's wages, again to the ire of people like you.

I don't believe the internet traffic was anything like we see today in Schumacher's time but I guess you would be right but then again it was kind of the other way around when Ferrari, or rather LDM, got tired of Schumacher and signed Kimi which would have taken away his #1 status if he had not retired instead.

schumilegend wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:39 pm

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:28 pm

schumilegend wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:09 pm

All the sites have articles on whether Mercedes should pay Hamilton his wages when it's clear the car is the mega star here.. I don't ever ever remember this happening to Schumacher even in his most dominant time.. Ferrari was always ready to pay him unheard of wages making him the most highly paid sportsman for years with Tiger Woods...It's clear Hamilton is a fake 7 time champion

Mate, I urge you to please stop this. It really does your credibility no good.

Lol..Ya ok, like i i give 2 cents about my "credibility" in a motorsport forum...What i said is true...may not sound good to a Hamilton fan

I think Saio7 is a Ferrari fan.

schumilegend wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:09 pm

All the sites have articles on whether Mercedes should pay Hamilton his wages when it's clear the car is the mega star here.. I don't ever ever remember this happening to Schumacher even in his most dominant time.. Ferrari was always ready to pay him unheard of wages making him the most highly paid sportsman for years with Tiger Woods...It's clear Hamilton is a fake 7 time champion

Hamilton, on the other hand, is not a self confessed, serial cheat whose on track disrespect for his rivals (Hill, Villeneuve, Monaco qualifying, etc.) was as almost as legendary as his results...

F1_Ernie wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 6:02 pm

I would look at how much Vettel earns and his performances the last 4 years than worry about Hamilton.

It seems that people are only ever concerned about what Hamilton earns, that being said Hamilton needs to be careful not to price himself out of the car if the numbers quoted are true.

tootsie323 wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 6:02 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:01 pm

Rockie wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 3:28 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 3:18 pm

Rockie wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:36 pm

What sort of mental gymnastics is this?

So let me ask you a question, if you are starting a team in F1 as a team principal and you have the option of signing one out of Bottas or Russell who would you sign?

I would sign Russell the driver that Mercedes tried to sign for next year.

The mental gymnastics is to show how wrong you were at suggesting that Russell performed at the same level as Hamilton would have done, when in fact he was no quicker than Bottas a driver that Hamilton easily beats come race day.

I suspected this was the reason for your mental gymnastics.

But are you suggesting that Bottas does not beat Hamilton in practice, and does not outqualify Hamilton and then Hamilton has a better start and pulls away from him?

If Russell is given 3 races in the car Bottas wont even be in the conversation anymore.

What does practice have to do with anything, there's a reason why Bottas is called the FP1 world champion.

Hamilton out qualifies Bottas by a ratio of about 2:1, Russell did not out qualify Bottas,

Having a gap of 2/3 seconds going into the first pitstop is not a driver pulling away from another driver, nominally it's a gap the driver behind would want to keep in order to look after his tyres.

For Hamilton we often get the hammertime were he extends the gap going into the first stops, often we even see Bottas pitting first because he's run out of tyres, not extend the stint by 4 laps like he did against Russell looking to get a tyre offset which he started to use against Russell before the race got ruined by SC's.

I wouldn't be looking to disagree with your last statement just the apparent reasoning that's what Russell actually did in Sakhir.

Just throwing in an alternative point of view here. I don't think that many would expect Russell to outqualify Bottas over a single lap in hist first outing in a new car.
During the first stint, I think it's equally fair to say that both drivers were managing the gap. Russell implied over the radio that he could step up the pace if need be.
Whilst Bottas did close was was initially a larger gap in the second stint (and before the SC and subsequent pit farce) I still feel that Russell had the race under control. Some of that time came about through the VSC and some, I'm inclined to think, through (lapping) traffic.
I'm not saying that this is the case -just an alternate view.

I'm not saying that Russell wouldn't and didn't deserve to win the race, I'm just replying to what I see as hyperbole, Bottas was dominated, Russell was as good as Hamilton etc.

For the record I would prefer to see Russell in the car next year I just doubt that Wolff would drop Bottas at short notice.

Asphalt_World wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 7:40 pm

Fiki wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:42 am

Asphalt_World wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 5:10 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:41 pm

Asphalt_World wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:33 pm

DRS could make today's race into one of those they had in Monza during the 60's. However, at least there was plenty of passing and near passes without the use of DRS.

Did downforce and aero wake even exist back then?

Very little, but my point was that in the two F2 races, there were passes without the need for DRS, despite all the DRS enabled passing.

Of course aero wake existed before the introduction of the wings! That's precisely what the drivers exploited in the 1960s (and earlier) on long straights. What did you think the Mistral straight at Paul Ricard was for? I hoped F1 would be open-minded enough to disable DRS for that track when it returned. But no, they decided to cut it in half, using a stupid chicane! That was the stupidest idea of the last decade or so, following hot on the heels of increasing downforce in search of lap records instead of racing. [/rant]

I didn't really enjoy the race. Another one decided on the first corner, and altered through the use of an unnecessary Spectacle Car intervention. Poor George... (And poor Stoffel, for that matter.)

I guess was I was thinking is that the wake didn't cause much of an issue for cars following through corners as aero downforce was minimal at best.

I've a feeling he's confused wake with slipstream, I believe the cars in the 60's could follow each other through the corners nose to tail?

j man wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:06 pm

Fiki wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:42 am

Asphalt_World wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 5:10 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:41 pm

Asphalt_World wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:33 pm

DRS could make today's race into one of those they had in Monza during the 60's. However, at least there was plenty of passing and near passes without the use of DRS.

Did downforce and aero wake even exist back then?

Very little, but my point was that in the two F2 races, there were passes without the need for DRS, despite all the DRS enabled passing.

Of course aero wake existed before the introduction of the wings! That's precisely what the drivers exploited in the 1960s (and earlier) on long straights. What did you think the Mistral straight at Paul Ricard was for? I hoped F1 would be open-minded enough to disable DRS for that track when it returned. But no, they decided to cut it in half, using a stupid chicane! That was the stupidest idea of the last decade or so, following hot on the heels of increasing downforce in search of lap records instead of racing. [/rant]

I didn't really enjoy the race. Another one decided on the first corner, and altered through the use of an unnecessary Spectacle Car intervention. Poor George... (And poor Stoffel, for that matter.)

Whilst I'm in general agreement about the misuse of the Safety Car in recent years, I actually thought it was used correctly in this instance. Personally I don't like seeing marshals running on the track, particularly onto the racing line as in this instance, without the race being neutralised and a sensible gap in the traffic provided for them to work. To the race director's credit he did initially try to sort it via VSC this time and only deployed the Safety Car later on when it was decided that it couldn't be done without putting a marshal in the firing line.

It is naive to think that the drivers are simply crawling around the track being careful when the VSC is on, they are still trying to negotiate the circuit as quickly as possible within the restrictions while trying to keep tyre and brake temperatures up; it's not good to have marshals running onto the track under those conditions.

So for me, it's VSC if there are marshals working in a run-off zone. Safety Car if they are on the track.

The problem I still have with both VSC (which I think is a serious improvement over the use of the Spectacle Car) and SC, is that their use undermines the respect drivers ought to have for yellow flags. To my old-fashioned mindset, yellow flags as used in the 1980s are quite enough as a safety measure, provided the FIA back up their use by serious penalties for offenders, and clear rules as to what kinds of speeds to be used for single yellow and double yellow flag areas.

Fiki wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:37 pm

j man wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:06 pm

Fiki wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:42 am

Asphalt_World wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 5:10 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:41 pm

Did downforce and aero wake even exist back then?

Very little, but my point was that in the two F2 races, there were passes without the need for DRS, despite all the DRS enabled passing.

Of course aero wake existed before the introduction of the wings! That's precisely what the drivers exploited in the 1960s (and earlier) on long straights. What did you think the Mistral straight at Paul Ricard was for? I hoped F1 would be open-minded enough to disable DRS for that track when it returned. But no, they decided to cut it in half, using a stupid chicane! That was the stupidest idea of the last decade or so, following hot on the heels of increasing downforce in search of lap records instead of racing. [/rant]

I didn't really enjoy the race. Another one decided on the first corner, and altered through the use of an unnecessary Spectacle Car intervention. Poor George... (And poor Stoffel, for that matter.)

Whilst I'm in general agreement about the misuse of the Safety Car in recent years, I actually thought it was used correctly in this instance. Personally I don't like seeing marshals running on the track, particularly onto the racing line as in this instance, without the race being neutralised and a sensible gap in the traffic provided for them to work. To the race director's credit he did initially try to sort it via VSC this time and only deployed the Safety Car later on when it was decided that it couldn't be done without putting a marshal in the firing line.

It is naive to think that the drivers are simply crawling around the track being careful when the VSC is on, they are still trying to negotiate the circuit as quickly as possible within the restrictions while trying to keep tyre and brake temperatures up; it's not good to have marshals running onto the track under those conditions.

So for me, it's VSC if there are marshals working in a run-off zone. Safety Car if they are on the track.

The problem I still have with both VSC (which I think is a serious improvement over the use of the Spectacle Car) and SC, is that their use undermines the respect drivers ought to have for yellow flags. To my old-fashioned mindset, yellow flags as used in the 1980s are quite enough as a safety measure, provided the FIA back up their use by serious penalties for offenders, and clear rules as to what kinds of speeds to be used for single yellow and double yellow flag areas.

That sounds a bit complicated compared to the VSC.

pokerman wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:52 pm

Fiki wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:37 pm

j man wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:06 pm

Fiki wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:42 am

Asphalt_World wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 5:10 pm

Very little, but my point was that in the two F2 races, there were passes without the need for DRS, despite all the DRS enabled passing.

Of course aero wake existed before the introduction of the wings! That's precisely what the drivers exploited in the 1960s (and earlier) on long straights. What did you think the Mistral straight at Paul Ricard was for? I hoped F1 would be open-minded enough to disable DRS for that track when it returned. But no, they decided to cut it in half, using a stupid chicane! That was the stupidest idea of the last decade or so, following hot on the heels of increasing downforce in search of lap records instead of racing. [/rant]

I didn't really enjoy the race. Another one decided on the first corner, and altered through the use of an unnecessary Spectacle Car intervention. Poor George... (And poor Stoffel, for that matter.)

Whilst I'm in general agreement about the misuse of the Safety Car in recent years, I actually thought it was used correctly in this instance. Personally I don't like seeing marshals running on the track, particularly onto the racing line as in this instance, without the race being neutralised and a sensible gap in the traffic provided for them to work. To the race director's credit he did initially try to sort it via VSC this time and only deployed the Safety Car later on when it was decided that it couldn't be done without putting a marshal in the firing line.

It is naive to think that the drivers are simply crawling around the track being careful when the VSC is on, they are still trying to negotiate the circuit as quickly as possible within the restrictions while trying to keep tyre and brake temperatures up; it's not good to have marshals running onto the track under those conditions.

So for me, it's VSC if there are marshals working in a run-off zone. Safety Car if they are on the track.

The problem I still have with both VSC (which I think is a serious improvement over the use of the Spectacle Car) and SC, is that their use undermines the respect drivers ought to have for yellow flags. To my old-fashioned mindset, yellow flags as used in the 1980s are quite enough as a safety measure, provided the FIA back up their use by serious penalties for offenders, and clear rules as to what kinds of speeds to be used for single yellow and double yellow flag areas.

That sounds a bit complicated compared to the VSC.

You lot knew I was going to say this, but anyway......

SLOW ZONES!!!!!

Asphalt_World wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:35 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:52 pm

Fiki wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:37 pm

j man wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:06 pm

Fiki wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:42 am

Of course aero wake existed before the introduction of the wings! That's precisely what the drivers exploited in the 1960s (and earlier) on long straights. What did you think the Mistral straight at Paul Ricard was for? I hoped F1 would be open-minded enough to disable DRS for that track when it returned. But no, they decided to cut it in half, using a stupid chicane! That was the stupidest idea of the last decade or so, following hot on the heels of increasing downforce in search of lap records instead of racing. [/rant]

I didn't really enjoy the race. Another one decided on the first corner, and altered through the use of an unnecessary Spectacle Car intervention. Poor George... (And poor Stoffel, for that matter.)

Whilst I'm in general agreement about the misuse of the Safety Car in recent years, I actually thought it was used correctly in this instance. Personally I don't like seeing marshals running on the track, particularly onto the racing line as in this instance, without the race being neutralised and a sensible gap in the traffic provided for them to work. To the race director's credit he did initially try to sort it via VSC this time and only deployed the Safety Car later on when it was decided that it couldn't be done without putting a marshal in the firing line.

It is naive to think that the drivers are simply crawling around the track being careful when the VSC is on, they are still trying to negotiate the circuit as quickly as possible within the restrictions while trying to keep tyre and brake temperatures up; it's not good to have marshals running onto the track under those conditions.

So for me, it's VSC if there are marshals working in a run-off zone. Safety Car if they are on the track.

The problem I still have with both VSC (which I think is a serious improvement over the use of the Spectacle Car) and SC, is that their use undermines the respect drivers ought to have for yellow flags. To my old-fashioned mindset, yellow flags as used in the 1980s are quite enough as a safety measure, provided the FIA back up their use by serious penalties for offenders, and clear rules as to what kinds of speeds to be used for single yellow and double yellow flag areas.

That sounds a bit complicated compared to the VSC.

You lot knew I was going to say this, but anyway......

SLOW ZONES!!!!!

Which I guess is a partial VSC with the possibility of big gainers or losers when the zone has gone?

pokerman wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:40 pm

Asphalt_World wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:35 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:52 pm

Fiki wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:37 pm

j man wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:06 pm

Whilst I'm in general agreement about the misuse of the Safety Car in recent years, I actually thought it was used correctly in this instance. Personally I don't like seeing marshals running on the track, particularly onto the racing line as in this instance, without the race being neutralised and a sensible gap in the traffic provided for them to work. To the race director's credit he did initially try to sort it via VSC this time and only deployed the Safety Car later on when it was decided that it couldn't be done without putting a marshal in the firing line.

It is naive to think that the drivers are simply crawling around the track being careful when the VSC is on, they are still trying to negotiate the circuit as quickly as possible within the restrictions while trying to keep tyre and brake temperatures up; it's not good to have marshals running onto the track under those conditions.

So for me, it's VSC if there are marshals working in a run-off zone. Safety Car if they are on the track.

The problem I still have with both VSC (which I think is a serious improvement over the use of the Spectacle Car) and SC, is that their use undermines the respect drivers ought to have for yellow flags. To my old-fashioned mindset, yellow flags as used in the 1980s are quite enough as a safety measure, provided the FIA back up their use by serious penalties for offenders, and clear rules as to what kinds of speeds to be used for single yellow and double yellow flag areas.

That sounds a bit complicated compared to the VSC.

You lot knew I was going to say this, but anyway......

SLOW ZONES!!!!!

Which I guess is a partial VSC with the possibility of big gainers or losers when the zone has gone?

Well, first of all there is no way to create a perfectly even outcome from any yellow flag situation, but I do feel the slow zone used in endurance racing is excellent. For those that don't know, it works a bit like this.

When a car is in a dangerous position, a zone is created when cars have to drive at a slow speed.

There are white lines with associated lightboards dotted around the circuit. When a slow zone is called, drivers are radioed to say where the zone is. AS they approach the zone, lights by the circuit and on the dashboard/wheel illuminate. Drivers have to slow in time for the white line on the circuit marking the start of the zone. They use the pit lane limited to control the speed which means there's no discrepancy between the speed different drivers go through it.

Once past the incident, they will pass another white line with green lights showing trackside and on their dash/wheel.

This means the car can be retrieved safely whilst racing takes place on about 9 tenths of the circuit. This is good for fans.

Now, with GPS, cars passing through the slow zone can be recorded so that even after the car incident has been cleared, then keep the slow zone until all cars have passed through it the same number of times. This helps to reduce loss/gains for different drivers.

As refuelling doesn't exist in F1, they could possibly close the pit lane during these periods except for safety issues.

As I said, there's no perfect solution, but this doesn't seem to reduce the chances of certain drivers lucking out and more importantly, the speed ALL the drivers pass the incident is both identical and very slow.

pokerman wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:40 pm

Asphalt_World wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:35 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:52 pm

Fiki wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:37 pm

j man wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:06 pm

Whilst I'm in general agreement about the misuse of the Safety Car in recent years, I actually thought it was used correctly in this instance. Personally I don't like seeing marshals running on the track, particularly onto the racing line as in this instance, without the race being neutralised and a sensible gap in the traffic provided for them to work. To the race director's credit he did initially try to sort it via VSC this time and only deployed the Safety Car later on when it was decided that it couldn't be done without putting a marshal in the firing line.

It is naive to think that the drivers are simply crawling around the track being careful when the VSC is on, they are still trying to negotiate the circuit as quickly as possible within the restrictions while trying to keep tyre and brake temperatures up; it's not good to have marshals running onto the track under those conditions.

So for me, it's VSC if there are marshals working in a run-off zone. Safety Car if they are on the track.

The problem I still have with both VSC (which I think is a serious improvement over the use of the Spectacle Car) and SC, is that their use undermines the respect drivers ought to have for yellow flags. To my old-fashioned mindset, yellow flags as used in the 1980s are quite enough as a safety measure, provided the FIA back up their use by serious penalties for offenders, and clear rules as to what kinds of speeds to be used for single yellow and double yellow flag areas.

That sounds a bit complicated compared to the VSC.

You lot knew I was going to say this, but anyway......

SLOW ZONES!!!!!

Which I guess is a partial VSC with the possibility of big gainers or losers when the zone has gone?

You can easily mitigate against that. Only remove the slow zone when the leader is at the same point on track as when the slow zone was first declared.

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:33 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:40 pm

Asphalt_World wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:35 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:52 pm

Fiki wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:37 pm

The problem I still have with both VSC (which I think is a serious improvement over the use of the Spectacle Car) and SC, is that their use undermines the respect drivers ought to have for yellow flags. To my old-fashioned mindset, yellow flags as used in the 1980s are quite enough as a safety measure, provided the FIA back up their use by serious penalties for offenders, and clear rules as to what kinds of speeds to be used for single yellow and double yellow flag areas.

That sounds a bit complicated compared to the VSC.

You lot knew I was going to say this, but anyway......

SLOW ZONES!!!!!

Which I guess is a partial VSC with the possibility of big gainers or losers when the zone has gone?

You can easily mitigate against that. Only remove the slow zone when the leader is at the same point on track as when the slow zone was first declared.

Exactly.

pokerman wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:52 pm

Fiki wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:37 pm

j man wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:06 pm

Fiki wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:42 am

Asphalt_World wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 5:10 pm

Very little, but my point was that in the two F2 races, there were passes without the need for DRS, despite all the DRS enabled passing.

Of course aero wake existed before the introduction of the wings! That's precisely what the drivers exploited in the 1960s (and earlier) on long straights. What did you think the Mistral straight at Paul Ricard was for? I hoped F1 would be open-minded enough to disable DRS for that track when it returned. But no, they decided to cut it in half, using a stupid chicane! That was the stupidest idea of the last decade or so, following hot on the heels of increasing downforce in search of lap records instead of racing. [/rant]

I didn't really enjoy the race. Another one decided on the first corner, and altered through the use of an unnecessary Spectacle Car intervention. Poor George... (And poor Stoffel, for that matter.)

Whilst I'm in general agreement about the misuse of the Safety Car in recent years, I actually thought it was used correctly in this instance. Personally I don't like seeing marshals running on the track, particularly onto the racing line as in this instance, without the race being neutralised and a sensible gap in the traffic provided for them to work. To the race director's credit he did initially try to sort it via VSC this time and only deployed the Safety Car later on when it was decided that it couldn't be done without putting a marshal in the firing line.

It is naive to think that the drivers are simply crawling around the track being careful when the VSC is on, they are still trying to negotiate the circuit as quickly as possible within the restrictions while trying to keep tyre and brake temperatures up; it's not good to have marshals running onto the track under those conditions.

So for me, it's VSC if there are marshals working in a run-off zone. Safety Car if they are on the track.

The problem I still have with both VSC (which I think is a serious improvement over the use of the Spectacle Car) and SC, is that their use undermines the respect drivers ought to have for yellow flags. To my old-fashioned mindset, yellow flags as used in the 1980s are quite enough as a safety measure, provided the FIA back up their use by serious penalties for offenders, and clear rules as to what kinds of speeds to be used for single yellow and double yellow flag areas.

That sounds a bit complicated compared to the VSC.

I don't see what is complicated about the difference between single and double waved yellow flags. It worked before the adoption of the Spectacle Car (for the purpose of saving TV-satellite time), and it should work now - provided the FIA aren't scared of being strict with drivers.